Formal logic versus transcendental logic: on a chapter in the controversy between analytical philosophy and neokantian movement concerning logicism
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.51359/2357-9986.2021.250142Keywords:
Analytical philosophy, Russell, Neo-Kantianism, Cassirer, logicismAbstract
The aim of this article is to focus on a specific chapter within the broad context of debate between the Neo-Kantian movement and analytical philosophy. It treats of the discussion between Ernst Cassirer and Bertrand Russell, which takes place in the history of philosophy in the late decades of the 2021nineteenth centuries and the early ones of the twentieth. In particular, we’ll look at the positions of each one of the authors regarding the nature of logic and the logicist program. In order to do that, at first, we’ll reconstruct this discussion starting from Russell. Hence, we’ll present the position of the Neo-Kantians (with greater emphasis on Cassirer) in this narrative. That done, we’ll deal with the critique of the English philosopher the notion of “transcendental logic” and its implications in Cassirer's philosophy, as well as that one of his predecessors in the Marburg school. Then we’ll bring to the debate the answer of the Neo-Kantian to the English philosopher; for, fi-nally, deal with some aspects of the logicism advocated by Cassirer.References
BARONE, F. (1957). Logica Formale e Logica Transcendentale. Vol. I-II.Edizioni di filosofia. Torino.
BAUM, M. (1980). „Methode, tranzendentale“. Em: Ritter, J., Günder, K.(Eds.), Historisches Wörterbuch der Philosophie. Bd. 5, Basel/Stuttgart,Schwabe.
BEANEY, M. (2006). “Frege and the role of historical elucidation: method-ology and the foundations of mathematics”. In.: FERREIRÓS, J. GRAY, J.J.(eds). The architecture of modern mathematics: essays in history and philos-ophy. Oxford University Press. pp. 47-66.
BEISER, F. (2014). The Genesis of Neo-Kantianism. 1796-1880. OxfordUniversity Press.
BENACERRAF, P. and PUTNAM, H. (1983). Philosophy of Mathematics.Second Edition. Cambridge U. Press.
BIAGIOLI, F. (2015). “Cassirer’s view of the mathematical method as aparadigm of symbolic thinking”. In.: GIEL, J. (Hrsg.) Ernst Cassirer: Zwischen Mythos und Wissenschaft. Lectiones & Acroases Philosophicae,VIII, 1. pp. 193-223.
BOURBAKI, N. (1974). Elements of Mathematics – Part I (Algebra I).[1943]. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
BOWNE, G. D. (1966). Philosophy of Logic (1880-1908). London.
CANTÙ, P. (2018). “The epistemological question of the applicability ofmathematics”. In.: Journal for the history of analytic philosophy, vol. 6 nº 3.pp. 94-114.
CARNAP, R. (1931). „Die logizistische Grundlegung der Mathematik“. In:Erkenntniss, vol. 2.
CASSIRER, E. (1991). Das Erkenntnisproblem in der Philosophie undWissenschaft der neuren Zeit. B. II. [1907] Darmstadt: WissenschaftlischeBuchgesellschaft.
CASSIRER, E. (1887). Determinismus und Indeterminismus in der modernenPhysik. In.: Zur modernen Physik. [1937] Darmstadt: WissenschaftlischeBuchgesellschaft.
CASSIRER, E. (1993). Erkenntnistheorie nebst den Grenzfragen der Logik. In:Erkenntnis, Begriff, Kultur. [1913] Ed. Rainer A. Bast. Hamburg: Meiner.pp. 1-76.
CASSIRER, E. (2000). Ensaio sobre o homem. [1945] São Paulo: Martins Fontes.
CASSIRER, E. (1975). Esencia y efecto del concepto de símbolo. México: Fondode Cultura Económica._
CASSIRER, E. (2001). Filosofia das formas simbólicas. Primeiro Tomo: A lingua-gem[1923] São Paulo: Martins fontes.
CASSIRER, E. (2001). Filosofiadas formas simbólicas. Segundo Tomo: O pensa-mento mítico [1925] São Paulo: Marins Fontes.
CASSIRER, E. (2001). Filosofia das Formas simbólicas. Terceiro Tomo: Fenome-nologia do conhecimento [1929] São Paulo: Martins fontes.
CASSIRER, E. (1907). Kant und die moderne Mathematik – Mit Bezug aufBertrand Russells und Louis Couturats Werke über die Prinzipien derMathematik [1907] In.: KANT-STUDIEN, Zwölfter band. Berlin, pp. 1-49.
CASSIRER, E. (1953). Substance and Function[1910]. In: Substance and Functionand Einstein’s Theory of Relativity. Chicago: Open Court.
CASSIRER, E. (1979). “Reflections on the concept of group and the theory of per-ception”. In.: Symbol, Myth and Culture: Essays and lectures of Ernst Cas-sirer 1935-1945, ed. Donald P. Verene, Yale University Press. pp. 271-291
COFFA, A. (1991). The semantic tradition from Kant to Carnap. CambridgeUniversity Press.
COHEN, H. (1871/1885). Kants Theorie der Erfahrung. Berlin. Ferd.Dümmlers Verlagsbuchhandlung.
COUTURAT, L. (1905).Les Principles des Mathématiques. Avec unAppendice sur La Philosophie des Mathématique de Kant. Paris: FélixAlcan.
DEDEKIND, R. (1888). Was sind und was sollen die Zahlen. Braun-schweig: Vieweg.
EDDINGTON, A. (1939). The philosophy of physical science. CambridgeUniversity Press.
EDGAR, S. (2015). “Intersubjectivity and physical laws in Post-Kantiantheory of knowledge: Natorp and Cassirer”. In.: In: FRIEDMAN, J. T. andLUFT, S. (eds.) The Philosophy of Ernst Cassirer: a Novel Assessment.Books by Marquette University Faculty. Book 225, pp. 141-162.
EWALD, W. (1996). From Kant to Hilbert: A source book in the founda-tions of mathematics. Vol. I-II. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
FERRARI, M. (2015). “Ernst Cassirer and the history of science”. In.: In:FRIEDMAN, J. T. and LUFT, S (eds.). The Philosophy of Ernst Cassirer: aNovel Assessment. Books by Marquette University Faculty. Book 225, pp.11-29.
FERRARI, M. (2010). “Is Cassirer a Neo-Kantian Methodolocally speaking?” In.:LUFT, S. And MAKRELL, R. (eds.) Neo-Kantianism in contemporary phi-losophy. Indiana University Press. pp. 293-314.
FREGE, G. (1984). Collected papers on Mathematics, Logic and Philoso-phy – edited by Brian McGuinness. Basil Blackwell Publisher.
FREGE, G. (1884). DieGrundlagen der Arithmetik. BRESLAU. Verlag vonWilhelm Koebner.
FRIEDMAN, J. T. and LUFT, S. (eds). (2015). The Philosophy of ErnstCassirer: a Novel Assessment. Books by Marquette University Faculty.Book 225.
GABRIEL, G. (2013). “Frege and the German background to analytic phi-losophy”. In.: BEANEY, M. The Oxford handbook of the history of analyticphilosophy. Oxford University Press. pp. 280-297.
GABRIEL, G. und SCHLOTTER, S. (2017). Frege und die KontinentalenUrsprünge der analytischen Philosophie. Münster: Mentis Verlag.
HEIS, J. (2015). “Arithmetic and number in the ‘Philosophy of SymbolicForms’”. In: FRIEDMAN, J. T. and LUFT, S. (Eds.). The Philosophy ofErnst Cassirer: a Novel Assessment. Books by Marquette University Fac-ulty. Book 225, pp. 123-140.
HEIS, J. (2010). “Critical philosophy begins at the very point where logisticleaves off: Cassirer’s Response to Frege and Russell”. PerspectivesonSci-ence, vol. 18, no. 4, by The Massachusetts Institute of Technology. pp. 383-408.
HILTON, P. (2005). Propositions, Functions and Analysis – Selected Essayson Russell’s Philosophy. Oxford University Press.
IHMIG, K-N. (1999). “Ernst Cassirer and the structural conception of ob-jects in modern science: the importance of the ‘Erlanger Programm’”. In.:ScienceinContext, 12, 4. pp. 513-529.
KANT, I. (1994). Crítica da Razão Pura [1ª Ed. 1781 – 2ª Ed. 1787] Lis-boa: Fundação Calouste Gulbekian.
KAUARK-LEITE, P. & NEVES, R. P. (2016). “From scientific structural-ism to Transcendental structuralism”. In.: Kriterion. Vol. 135. pp. 759-780.
KÖHNKE, K. (1991). The Rise of neo-Kantianism: German academic phi-losophy between idealism and positivism. [1986] New York, CambridgeUniversity Press.
LINDGREN, J. R. (1968). “Cassirer’s Theory of Concept Formation”. In.:NewScholasticism. Vol. 42, nº 1. pp. 91-102.
MATHERNE, S. (2018). “Cassirer’s Psychology of Relations: From thePsychology of Mathematics and Natural Science to the Psychology of Cul-ture”. In.: Journal for the history of analytical philosophy. Vol. 6, Nº 3. Special issue: Method, Science and Mathematics: Neo-Kantianism and analyti-cal philosophy. Ed. Scott Edgar and Lydia Paton. University of Massachu-setts. pp. 133-162.
MORMANN, T. (2008). “Idealization in Cassirer’s Philosophy of Mathe-matics”. In.: PhilosophiaMathematica. Vol. 3, nº 16. pp. 151-181.
NATORP, P. (1910). Die logischen Grundlagen der exakten Wissenschaften.Leipzig und Berlin Druck und Verlag von B. G. Teubner.
NATORP, P. (1982). „Über objektive und subjektive Begründung derErkenntniss“, Philosophische Monatshefte, 23. pp. 257–286.
OLIVA, L. (2015). “Kant and the Neo-Kantians on Mathematics”. In.:STAITI, A. and WARREN, N. (eds.) New approaches on Neo-Kantianism.Cambridge University Press. pp. 285-306.
PARSONS, C. (1990). “The struturalistic view of mathematical objects”.Synthese, 84. pp. 303-346.
PORTA, M. A. G. (2011). “A teoria do número em Natorp e Cassirer (1898-1910). Uma contribuição histórica ao estruturalismo matemático e às ori-gens do ‘semantic turn’”. pp. 103-144. In. Idem.ESTUDOSNEOKANTIA-NOS. São Paulo: Loyola.
PORTA, M. A. G. (2011). “De Newton a Maxwell. Uma contribuição à compreensãodo projeto cassireriano de uma ‘Filosofia das Formas Simbólicas’” P. 71-102. In. Idem.ESTUDOSNEOKANTIANOS. São Paulo: Loyola.
PORTA, M. A. G. (2006). “Frege y Natorp: platonismos, antipsicologismosy teorias de la subjectividad”. O QUE NOS FAZ PENSAR? (PUC-RJ), V.20. pp. 163-184
PORTA, M. A. G. (2018). “NATUR UND GEIST: A escola de Baden como ‘teoriacomplementar do positivismo’. A polêmica Bauch-Kroner e seu entorno.PENSANDO: Revista de Filosofia UFPI. pp. 174-190.
PULKKINEN, J. (2001). “Cassirer and Couturat’s Critique of Kant’s Philos-ophy of Mathematics”. In.: Ralph Schumacher, Rolf-Peter Horstmann &Volker Gerhardt (eds.),Kant Und Die Berliner Aufklärung: Akten des Ix.Internationalen Kant-Kongresses. Bd. I: Hauptvorträge. Bd. Ii: Sektionen I-V. Bd. Iii: Sektionen Vi-X: Bd. Iv: Sektionen Xi-Xiv. Bd. V: Sektionen Xv-Xviii. De Gruyter. pp. 315-322.
RECK, E. (2011). “Dedekind’s Contributions to the Foundations of Mathe-matics”. In.: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, (originally published in2008, revised in 2011). pp. 1-32.
RECK, E. (2003). “Dedekind’s structuralism: An interpretation and partial de-fense”. In.: Synthese, 137. pp. 369-419.
RECK, E. (2009). “Dedekind, structural reasoning, and mathematical under-standing”, In.: VAN KERKHOVE, B. (ed.), New Perspectives on Mathe-matical Practices, Singapore: World Scientific. pp. 150-173.
RECK, E. and KELLER, P. “From Dedekind to Cassirer: Logicism and theKantian heritage”. (Forthcoming) In.: POSY, C. and RECHTER, O. Kant’sphilosophy of Mathematics, Vol. II: Reception and development after Kant.Cambridge University Press.
RICHARDSON, A. (2003). “Conceiving, Experiencing, and ConceivingExperiencing: Neo-Kantianism and the History of the Concept of Experi-ence.” In.: TOPOI. Vol. 22. pp. 55-67.
RICHARDSON, A. (2017). “On Making Philosophy Functional: Ernst Cassirer’s „Sub-stanzbegriff und Funktionsbegriff“”. In.: SCHLIESSER, E. Ten neglectedclassics of philosophy. Oxford University Press. pp. 177-194.
RICHARDSON, A. (2006). “‘The Fact of Science’ and ‘Critique of Knowledge’: ExactScience as Problem and Resource in Marburg Neo-Kantianism”. In: FRIED-MAN AND NORDMANN: The Kantian Legacy in Nineteenth-century Sci-ence. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. pp. 211-226.
RUSSELL, B. (2010). Principles of Mathematics[1903]. Routledge.
SCHIEMER, G. (2018). “Cassirer and the Structural Turn in Modern Geom-etry”. In.: Journal for the history of analytical philosophy. Vol. 6, Nº 3. Spe-cial issue: Method, Science and Mathematics: Neo-Kantianism and analyti-cal philosophy. Ed. Scott Edgar and Lydia Paton. University of Massachu-setts. pp. 182-212.
SMART, H. R.(1943). “Cassirer versus Russell”. In.: Philosophyofscience.Vol. 10, nº 3. pp. 167-175.
SMART, H. R.(1924). “Review of “Substance and Function and Einstein’s Theoryof Relativity” by Ernst Cassirer”. In.: ThePhilosophicalReview. Vol. 33, nº4. pp. 398-406.
WINDELBAND, W. (1894). “Geschichte und Naturwissenschaft”, reprintedin hisPräludien, vol. 2, pp. 136–160. Translated as “History and NaturalScience”, by Guy Oakes, in NKR: 287–298
YAP. A. (2014). “Dedekind and Cassirer on Mathematical Concept Forma-tion”. In.: PhilosophiaMathematica, pp. 1-21
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
A Revista Perspectiva Filosófica orienta seus procedimentos de gestão de artigos conforme as diretrizes básicas formuladas pelo Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq). http://www.cnpq.br/web/guest/diretrizesAutores que publicam nesta revista concordam com os seguintes termos:
Os autores mantém os direitos autorais e concedem à revista o direito de primeira publicação, sendo o trabalho simultaneamente licenciado sob https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.pt_BR que permite o compartilhamento do trabalho com reconhecimento da autoria e publicação inicial nesta revista.
Os autores têm autorização para assumir contratos adicionais separadamente, para distribuição não-exclusiva da versão do trabalho publicada nesta revista, com reconhecimento de autoria e publicação inicial nesta revista (Consultar http://opcit.eprints.org/oacitation-biblio.html).
Esta revista está licenciada com uma Licença Creative Commons Atribuição 4.0 Internacional.
